Stay At Home Orders

I came across a site with a summary of COVID-19 related lawsuits.

Negligence and Breach of Contract Actions
  • In California, a 24 Hour Fitness member sued the nationwide gym chain after it continued to collect monthly fees despite gym closures. The claim is brought on behalf of all 24 Hour Fitness members in the United States, alleging negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment along with several statutory causes of action.
  • In New York, members of the New York Sports Club have brought a similar claim against the club and its owners. The club collected monthly membership fees on March 1, only to close in accordance with government orders on March 16. The plaintiffs allege that the lack of access to the club represents a breach of contract, as does the club's failure to suspend membership charges, grant cancellation requests or provide any compensation in exchange for previously-received membership dues which went "unused".
  • In Arizona, students and parents from many of the state's universities have started a class action against the body that governs the schools and decided to close dormitories due to the pandemic. The claim states that despite the defendants' "constructive eviction of students", there has been no offer to refund students for the unused portion of their room and board. When refunds have been offered, the plaintiffs suggest that these refunds have not been commensurate with the plaintiffs' losses. The plaintiffs base their claims in breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.
Actions Against Employers
  • Employees of the United States federal government started a class action in connection with the government's alleged failure to adequately protect its employees against COVID-19 exposure. The claim, which was brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, alleges that the federal government has provided neither protective equipment to employees who come into close contact with COVID-19 nor the hazardous duty pay owed to class employees under federal regulations.
Insurance Actions
  • A Canada-wide class action has been commenced in Saskatchewan against certain insurers on behalf of Canadian business owners who allege they have been denied business interruption insurance during COVID-19. One of the representative plaintiffs is a Regina-based restaurateur, who claims to have lost over $100,000 in reservation and event cancellation fees since closing in mid-March.
  • Two claims have been filed in Illinois against a Wisconsin-based insurer over the insurer's denial of "business interruption" claims. Both claims allege that their insurance policies provided coverage for losses incurred because of a 'necessary suspension' of operations. They seek breach of contract and declaratory relief.
    • The plaintiff business owners in the Big Onion Tavern Group action all operate in the greater Chicago area. In their claim, they note that if the defendant had wanted to exclude pandemic-related losses it could have done so with an express exclusion at the front-end—as other insurers have purportedly done with other policies.
    • The plaintiffs in the Billy Goat Tavern I action seek to represent a class of all "similarly situated businesses" in Illinois. In trying to establish direct physical loss to their property, as required under their insurance policy, the plaintiffs assert that COVID-19 "rendered the covered property at the premises...unsafe and inaccessible for dine-in customers".
Business Interruption Actions Against Governments
  • In Pennsylvania, business owners have brought a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the state government, alleging that orders requiring Pennsylvania businesses to close without providing for compensation were unconstitutional. The suit does not contest whether the closure orders were "prudent" or within the state government's authority, but that the failure to provide compensation for the diminution of value in property violated the plaintiffs' due process.
 
We should have broken up with China's evil regime rather than allowing them to sully, deflower, and ravish us for decades.
 
army judge said:
He could be accurate because allegations abound about deaths OTHER than those related to the Chi Com bio weapon virus plague being added to Chi Com bio weapon virus death tallies.

Trickery, chicanery, and skullduggery abound.
Click to expand...
You should heed his plea and send him your stimulus check. ;)
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
I agree. Maybe all of this will make us rethink the logic of moving our manufacturing offshore especially to China.
Click to expand...

It's a fantasy to think that manufacturing jobs will come flocking back to the U.S. as result of this. It is just too expensive to do that in the U.S. and companies could not then compete against other international companies that manufacture in lower cost countries. What will likely happen is that companies will start diversifying their manufacturing operations so that they are overly reliant on getting things from just one country. We are already seeing some of that shift out of China to other nations like Vietnam, India, Thailand, Mexico etc.
 
justblue said:
You should heed his plea and send him your stimulus check. ;)
Click to expand...


Sadly, I don't get that $1,200 gift, neither does my spouse.

We make TOO much money. :D

Sorry, one can never make TOO much money.

Those crafty politricksters didn't want a six or twelve month IRS tax holiday, they gotta screw some to make a few smile.

If you received (or will receive) some money from Uncle Sammy, good on you.
 
PayrollHRGuy said:
I agree. Maybe all of this will make us rethink the logic of moving our manufacturing offshore especially to China.
Click to expand...


It should, especially our pharmaceuticals, but it won't.

If you make widgets for $10.00 per unit in the USA, but can make the same widget in some 6th world dictatorship for $1.00 per unit and sell it for $50.00 per unit; greed wins time after time.

Greed will also assist in destroying the USA.
 
mightymoose said:
They are invoking authority under the Riot Control Act, but are people actually rioting?
Click to expand...

This is an example of why you should not simply rely on the title of an act to infer what it covers. It allows the state to act in more than just a riot situation. NM statute § 12-10-17 states:

Upon request of the mayor of a municipality or the sheriff of a county or a majority of the members of the governing body of the municipality or county having jurisdiction and after finding that a public disorder, disaster or emergency which affects life or property exists in the state, the governor may proclaim a state of emergency in the area affected. The proclamation becomes effective immediately upon its signing by the governor, but the governor shall give public notice of its contents through the public press and other news media.​

(Bolding added.) As you can see, an emergency which affects life or property is sufficient to invoke the governor's authority to act after receiving the appropriate request from the municipality. As for the powers the governor may use in the state of emergency, those are covered in § 12-10-18, as follows:

A. During the existence of a state of emergency, the governor may, by proclamation, prohibit:
(1) any person being on the public streets, in the public parks or at any other public place during the hours proclaimed by the governor to be a period of curfew;
(2) any designated number of persons from assembling or gathering on the public streets, public parks or other open areas, either public or private, or in any public building;
(3) the manufacture, transfer, use, possession or transportation of any device or object designed to explode or produce uncontained combustion;
(4) the transportation, possession or use of combustible, flammable or explosive materials in a glass or uncapped container of any kind except in connection with the normal operation of motor vehicles, normal home use or legitimate commercial use;
(5) the possession of firearms or any other deadly weapon by a person in any place other than his place of residence or business, except for peace officers;
(6) the sale, purchase or dispensing of alcoholic beverages or other commodities or goods designated by the governor;
(7) the use of certain streets or highways by the public; and
(8) other activities the governor reasonably believes should be prohibited to help maintain life, property or the public peace.
​
B. Any proclamation issued under this section becomes effective immediately upon its signing by the governor, but the governor shall give public notice of its contents through the public press and other news media. The restrictions may be imposed during times, upon conditions, with exceptions and in areas of the state designated by proclamation of the governor from time to time.​

It appears that (1), (2), (6), & (8) do indeed cover the restrictions that the governor put in place as described by the article. Moreover, under § 12-10-19, the governor's order expires 3 days after it takes effect, and indeed the article states that the order will start May 1 and terminate May 4, thus complying with the 3 day limitation.

As a result, it appears that the governor's actions fit squarely within the statute. So while it appears to me that you want to find examples of government overreach to fit a theory that our rights are being abused left and right in this crisis, this one doesn't support that theory.
 
So when the relevant statutes don't reach far enough it is acceptable to find a catch all clause of an unrelated authority that happens to have similar wording with obvious alternate intent.

3 days... Under these circumstances what would be the point? People still won't be rioting but they will still be sick.
 
mightymoose said:
So when the relevant statutes don't reach far enough it is acceptable to find a catch all clause of an unrelated authority that happens to have similar wording with obvious alternate intent.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you are still stuck on the word "riot" in the title of the Act. Forget the title, it is not an operative part of the Act. The very wording of the law tells you that it is meant to cover any sort of emergency that poses a threat to life or property, not just riots. Certainly this pandemic poses a threat to life. So the law covers this kind of emergency, and the governor's actions fit within the powers granted to her. You obviously don't like that, but this is not a case where the governor is exceeding her authority.

mightymoose said:
3 days... Under these circumstances what would be the point? People still won't be rioting but they will still be sick.
Click to expand...

The article didn't explain why the mayor thought that the use of this authority would help his city. But the mayor would be the one to ask that question.
 
Forget about the word "riot" and look at the obvious intent of the law.
The reason there is a 3 day limit is because it has nothing to do with a public health issue and everything to do with controlling civil unrest. It is clearly not the type of emergency the Act is intended to address. In fact, unnecessarily invoking this authority could be something that actually sparks unrest.
 
See, I'm looking at it as using the word riot as a way to get it passed in the first place. Had that named it the First Amendment Violation Act they couldn't have gotten it passed.
 

Ask a Question

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top